Talk:Hannah Abbott
Life after Hogwarts Is Hannah really married to Neville? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.16.208.216 (talk • ) }| }|}}. :Yes, Rowling released the info at Carnegie Hall during her book tour. Follow the link in the reference section for the article. - [[User:Cavalier One|'Cavalier One']](''Wizarding Wireless Network'') 09:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC) Thank you, I found it. Do we know if she became landlady of the Leaky Cauldron right after Tom? Dbones2009 01:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC) : I believe JK said something about it -Matoro183 (Ravenclaw) 01:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)]] ::Do you know where the article was?Dbones2009 15:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC) :::JK only said she would become the Landlady, presumably by 2017 when the epilogue is set. She didn't state when she became landlady, though. The article that mentions it is linked to in the References section in the article. - [[User:Cavalier One|'Cavalier One']](''Wizarding Wireless Network'') 23:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC) ::::Lol I knew she became landlady. I guess what I'm trying to get across is that it's wrong to assume that she became landlady right after tom and the article has that feeling...Dbones2009 12:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC) Children Does she and Neville have kids?--HallieryElizabeth 00:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC) :Not at the moment. JK hasn't revealed any information regarding that. - [[User:Cavalier One|'Cavalier One']](''Wizarding Wireless Network'') 08:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC) Muggle Father JKR has compromised, on record, that Hannah is half-blood, but that doesn't necessarily mean that her father was a muggle. He could have been a muggle-born or a half-blood with one wizarding parent, it's unknown for sure how she would be regarded if he were a squib (and bear in mind you get pure-blood squibs, eg Marius Black). If the Abbott in Godrics hollow is a distant relative, then her father's side would probably be magical to some extent. Her mother probably is a witch, but then if either of her parents were muggle, Hannah would be considered a half blood. I removed the reference. Only child? Sorry, but how do we know Hannah is an only child? Did JK say that she was? --Margiechocoholic Owl me! 08:51, December 4, 2009 (UTC) New Photo I think that the current photo is quite how do i put it ugly and i think it should be changed from a GOF to a OOTP or HBP or something better. 18:50, February 26, 2010 (UTC) :Well, she doesn't appear in any other films, and policy refers you user the most recent picture of them.--[[User:Lord Voldemort killed the vampire James|''L.V.K.T.V.J.]] ([[User talk:Lord Voldemort killed the vampire James|Send an owl!]]) 21:30, February 26, 2010 (UTC) Well to be honest i did say or "something better" as maybe a second year photo or it could be a game picture for example Hannah Abott's profile pic! 18:41, February 27, 2010 (UTC) correction: Colin Creevly Seamus & Hannah & the Yule Ball The page states in the GoF film, Hannah was Seamus's date to the Yule Ball. Watching the scene, I think I spotted Hannah in a blue dress with her hair down, but Seamus seems to be dancing with a brunette who's hair is up. I love the idea of them going together and was wondering if I was looking in the right spot or if the information was found somewhere else. Thanks! :) 08:26, August 14, 2010 (UTC)Meg :) It's false info. Seamus went with Lavender Brown. (BTW, Neville shouldve ended up with Luna, not Hannah) If You Wanna Bust Your Brothers, Follow the Yellow Sidewalk! 19:12, October 13, 2010 (UTC) Actually in the film he went with a Beauxbaton student, but in the book he went with Lavender. --BachLynn (Accio!) 19:19, October 13, 2010 (UTC) Hi, I know the photo of Seamus and Hannah which is removed now from the site. I have the DVD and on the second disk there are the deleted scenes. I saw them in the dance training scene for the Yule Ball. On the Yule Ball itself I saw him then with a brunette girl, likely the Beauxbatons girl, because they did not cast Lavender Brown for GoF. Harry granger 20:00, October 13, 2010 (UTC) infobox picture can someone change the infobox picture for her? everytime i come on this page that picture freaks me out for some reason. Speedysnitch 16:17, June 7, 2011 (UTC) Will Charlotte to play Hannah Abbot in the Deathly Hallows: Part 2? Daughters? Is it revealed that Hannah and Neville have 2 daughters, Alice and Augusta? :No, it's fanon. It has been removed, thanks for the heads up. - [[User:Cavalier One|'Cavalier One']] ([[User talk:Cavalier One|''Wizarding Wireless Network]]) 13:47, August 12, 2011 (UTC) Should her mention in book 6 count as an appearence? Some people were discussing on wikipedia about whether the mention of her being pulled out of school after one of her family members is killed should count as an appearence. I think it should be changed to "mentioned only", so I've done that, but anyone who thinks otherwise is welcome to change it back. On Pottermore, Rowling show's a list of Pure - Blood family. Abbott is the first on the script. Here is the list: Abbott Avery Black Bulstrode Burke Carrow Crouch Fawley Flint Gaunt Greengrass Lestrange Longbottom Macmillan Malfoy Nott Ollivander Parkinson Prewett Rosier Rowle Selwyn Shacklebolt Shafiq Slughorn Travers Weasley Yaxley The Abbotts were pure-bloods in the 1930s. By the 1990s, they weren´t anymore. The same can be said for the Ollivander and Bullstrode families.--Rodolphus (talk) 17:55, September 19, 2012 (UTC) :I have a theroy about her blood status: I assumed that the Abbotts always pure-blood wizards, but Hannah's father married a witch who had a muggle ancestory... Thus Hannah is actually an half-blood witch, but it is possible everybody thinks she is a pure-blood. GianG (talk) 20:42, December 23, 2014 (UTC) Hannah and Ernie discuss the possibility of Harry being Slytherin's heir That was one of the most important parts in the book, they shouldn't have deleted it from the film. If I was to write a list of deleted scenes that shouldn't have been excluded, that would be first on the list, or one of the first. C.Syde (talk | contribs) 06:25, March 13, 2014 (UTC) Healer? Should we really mention that? Rita wrote that there are rumours, just runours.--Rodolphus (talk) 20:33, July 10, 2014 (UTC) :I think that this could be deleted as an official information. We should just mention this is a rumor. -- GianG (talk) 17:11, February 12, 2015 (UTC) Blood Status I have no idea why people have decided to publish that Hannah was a halfblood, but it is clear like crystal that she was meant to be a pureblood. She belongs to the Abbot family, which is one of the Sacred Twenty-Eight, and in the interview that was cited as source for the claim that she is a halfblood it is actually clear that Rowling thought about her as a pureblood. Rowling even insisted ("I'm sure that she was a pureblood!") several times, until she was worn down and was simply induced by the interviewer to think otherwise, because he insisted without any evidence that Hannah was a muggleborn when this was clearly not the case. Rowling was simply confused and "agreed" to a "compromise" of calling her a halfblood instead at that moment, which is naturally not a canonical position. - User talk:Es157 :Still, that is the last thing Rowling has said about Hannah's blood status so it is canon. We can only go by what Rowling has said, not what we think she intended. As for Hannah being part of the pure-blood Abbott family, not all members of a pure-blood family are pure-bloods themselves, such as the many half-bloods on the Malfoy family tree or individuals such as Harry Potter. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 16:45, December 6, 2019 (UTC) ::With all due respect to your opinions, this is completely illogical. It is clear even in the interview that Rowling thinks Hannah is a pureblood. She has always been a pureblood until an interviewer induced Rowling to say something else, in a moment when she had just admitted that she didn't have her notes with her to be sure. Though since this wiki accepts Lego Harry Potter as canon, it isn't that much of a surprise that it would accept such a thing as well. - User talk:Es157 :::Do have a different source from Rowling where she states that Hannah is a pure-blood? Given that the Harry Potter Lexicon also has Hannah as a half-blood, I don't think this has to do with which canon sources are used. You can see in their notes (and in the wiki's Behind the scenes section) that in a 2001 interview Rowling listed her as muggle-born, so obviously Hannah hasn't "always been a pureblood" --Ironyak1 (talk) 17:17, December 6, 2019 (UTC) ::::This other site you've mentioned did the same mistake as you did, and probably one just copied the mistake from the other. I don't intend to mess up with your site or anything. I'm just telling you that I find this piece of information blatantly wrong and I felt the need to offer my insight. I have cited my sources. The interview itself shows that Rowling was confident that Hannah was a pure-blood until the interviewer worn her out by insisting otherwise, and she relented because she said she didn't have her notes to check the information. The notion that Hannah was a muggleborn, which is presented by the interviewer, has clearly been discarded, since Hannah belongs to a Sacred Pure-Blood family and therefore can never be a muggleborn. - User talk:Es157 It seems you have your opinion on this regardless of what Rowling has said on the matter. In 2001 BBC interview, Rowling's notebook shows Hannah Abbott being muggle born (here is a lengthy analysis and history about this source). In 2007, Pottercast brought this up and the Rowling said she thought Hannah was pure-blood but then compromised to half-blood. You want to choose this one statement of Hannah being pure-blood as fact and apparently ignore all the other info, including Rowling's final word on the matter. However this site, and most other reliable sources, are bound by Rowling's word in determining canon. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 17:41, December 6, 2019 (UTC) :It takes a bit of common sense and logic rather than just blind obedience to statements taken out of context to define what is canon. This wiki takes Lego Harry Potter as canon, so what exactly do you mean by "This site is bound by Rowling's word"? In 2001 Rowling still hadn't established the Twenty-Eight Sacred Families, so these notes that show Hannah as a muggleborn have obviously been overturned by Rowling herself. Also in 2007 she didn't officialize any compromise to making Hannah a halfblood. She was merely confused by the interviewer's suggestion (which was based on the overturned/old canon), and her confusion in itself demonstrates that she didn't think of Hannah as anything but a pureblood. Obviously you are not going to relent, but I'm just stating the actual canon in contrast to the version that has been accepted by this wiki for unknown reasons. - User talk:Es157 ::The defining policy here is "Rowling's word is law", so when she contradicts herself (or retcons previous material) then her most recent statement is the new canon. This avoids having individuals trying to interpret what she might have meant or intended. In 2001 Hannah was muggle-born because Rowling said so. After 2007, Hannah is half-blood because Rowling said so. All the major sources on HP canon agree with this so that's where it stands. You are welcome to your head canon, but it does not align with that fact that half-bloods are known to be in Sacred Twenty-eight families (so your logic that Hannah as an Abbott must be pure-blood does does not hold up) or agree with Rowling's last words on this topic. --Ironyak1 (talk) 18:05, December 6, 2019 (UTC) :::I suppose this is a problem of interpretation. Either you are literal or you take context into consideration. Rowling never meant Hannah to be a halfblood, but only a muggleborn and later a pureblood. The halfblood reference was merely her joking attempt to conciliate her view (that Hannah was a pureblood) with the interviewer's version (that she was a muggleborn). Naturally I know that halfbloods can be in the Sacred Twenty-Eight. I've only said that muggleborns cannot, when I was arguing that Rowling changed her mind about Hannah being muggleborn. Later in the 2007 interview, the interviewer insisted on this discarded version (that Hannah's mugglerborn), which confused Rowling because she had in her mind that Hannah was a pureblood. In other words, you're basically allowing the interviewer to dictate the canon by inducing Rowling to say something that she didn't mean. - User talk:Es157 ::::Again, that is your interpretation. Rowling is a big girl - if she wanted to insist that Hannah is pure-blood, and her earlier notes on her being a muggle-born were just a draft, she could have done so. At the end of the day she decided to make Hannah a half-blood (Rowling: "Yeah, that’s how decisions are taken in the fairly random world of J.K. Rowling."). I recommend you listen to the interview as it's all quite friendly and Rowling is not "worn down" by Melissa asking her about this topic. However, I think it's now quite clear where this information came from and why it is taken as canon - sorry you don't agree. --Ironyak1 (talk) 18:31, December 6, 2019 (UTC) :::::She doesn't have any material at hand to contest what is being declared by the interviewer (and she clearly doesn't even remember having once made Hannah a muggleborn, which implies this was just a draft mistake from the beginning). This is why she relents and what I mean by "worn down". When she "agrees" to her "compromise", it is clearly because she is lead to believe that she has never established anything about this topic before. In any case, I think you're entitled to pick whatever version you want. I only suggest that you put a note attached to the source link, explaining controversies and developments of this discussion, in order not to mislead your readers. - User talk:Es157